新东方在线GMAT频道整理了《GMAT逻辑如何判断陷阱选项》，希望对大家的2021GMAT逻辑备考有所帮助。

　　GMAT逻辑选项思维陷阱实例1：不准确信息选项

　　The start-up company Pillow Inc. makes pillows that ensure a perfect night’s sleep, and thus, many companies are seeking to acquire it. The two largest contenders, SleepCo and SweetDreams, are set to make offers soon, and Pillow Inc. will probably sell to the company that offers them the most money. Because SleepCo had much more profitable years than SweetDreams in the last decade, it’s likely that SleepCo will soon acquire Pillow Inc.

　　Which of the following would be most useful to compare in evaluating the argument?

　　A) The proportion of available funds both SleepCo and SweetDreams have set aside for the specific purpose of acquiring other companies.

　　B) The number of times in recent years that each company has reinvested all of its profit into business ventures.

　　题目大意

　　这道题目包含的选项就涉及到了不准确信息类的思维陷阱。这道题目讲的是两家公司都想收购P企业，而其中一家因为近年来赚钱更多所以收购成功可能性更高。问哪个选项能帮助大家评估这个推论。两个选项中A选项说的是要看两家公司的可用资金中用于收购其它企业资金的百分比。B选项说的是近年来两家公司各自投入所有利润进行商业投资的次数。

　　陷阱分析

　　初看两个选项，可能许多同学会觉得选项A很有道理，对啊，谁投入的钱比例多自然谁收购的可能性就更大了。但是大家忽略了一个关键问题，那就是衡量标准并不是比例而是实际资金，也就是说假设A公司可用资金为500万，100%都用来收购，而B公司资金1亿，10%用来收购，虽然A公司的百分比更高，但实际上出钱更多的还是B公司。选项中如果出现这种和实际问题关系并不明确，可以说是不准确的信息，那么这种选项就是很明显的思维陷阱了。因此，如果逻辑题问题中涉及到一些数据方面的问题，那么大家一定要看清具体数据信息要求，而不能要轻易被比例等概念给糊弄过去。

　　GMAT逻辑选项思维陷阱实例2：与原文无关的常识类陷阱

　　The city council in Hobbiton is disturbed by the terrible nutritional value of the meals served for lunch at the public schools in the Frodo District. One step they’re taking to alleviate this issue is to stop purchasing animal products from Everything Fried, and they are instead looking at Healthy Meats for the meat and dairy portions of the lunches. Because Healthy Meats uses significantly less salt than Everything Fried, this change would make school lunches healthier.

　　Which of the following would weaken the argument?

　　A) Everything Fried is unhealthy because of the unusually high mercury levels in all of its food.

　　B) Healthy Meats provides meats for two large fast food chains.

　　题目大意

　　公立学校要换午餐肉类原料的供应商，之所以选择新工商是因为他家用盐更少，所以做出来的午餐会更健康。问哪个选项会削弱这个推论。A选项说原来那家供应商不健康是因为产品中的汞含量明显偏高。B选项说的是新供应商也在为全国两大快餐连锁店提供肉品。

　　陷阱分析

　　既然要削弱，那么自然是要求说新供应商的坏话，而B选项似乎很好的完成了这个任务。因为按照常识，快餐连锁提供的基本都是垃圾食品，而垃圾食品自然健康不到哪里去，为快餐连锁提供肉品的公司自然健康程度也不怎么样了。逻辑看似很通顺。但是，这个选项也是有陷阱的。因为大家进行的推论并不是建立在原文基础上，而是根据自己的常识得出的结论。一提到快餐就觉得不健康，这本来就是大家日常生活中形成的概念，而不是这篇文章里提供的信息，根据这样的信息得出结论很明显是错误的。真正正确的选项是A，因为原文中换供应商的依据是用盐多少的问题，但实际上A供应商不健康却是因为汞含量超标而不是盐的问题，那么这个基于盐而得出的推论自然就被削弱了。其实常识类思维陷阱在GMAT逻辑中是相当常见的，所以大家一定要注意思考问题时不要把非原文给出的日常生活常识代入考量之中。

　　GMAT逻辑选项思维陷阱实例3：微量加强也是加强

　　In Oceanside, recent thunderstorms have brought about some of the most severe flooding the city has ever seen. This is most likely due to the city’s zoning laws. The lack of such laws allowed developers to build as much as they wanted, and this required the pouring of acres and acres of concrete. Concrete lacks the permeability of soil, so even with the draining system designed by the city planners, the ground just didn’t have the ability to absorb the rainwater at rates even close to what it could before.

　　Which of the following would strengthen the argument?

　　A) If zoning laws had been in place, the same developments could have been built at three times the cost due to steep fees paid to the city.

　　B) Concrete is the least permeable substance of all common building materials.

　　题目大意

　　O市近期因为雷雨遭遇严重洪灾，原因在于缺乏法律规范房地产开发商大量建房，土壤都被混凝土代替，而混凝土吸收排水能力远不如土壤，所以才出现洪灾。问如何加强推论。A选项说如果法律健全，那么开发商造房子的花费会是现在的三倍。B选项说混凝土是所有常用建材中吸收排水能力最差的材料。

　　陷阱分析

　　这道题目两个选项给人的初始印象可能会是好像对于加强都没太大作用。A选项3倍成本又如何，也许人家开发商不差这点钱还是能造那么多房子用那么多混凝土呢?B选项陈述了一个没什么关系的事实，那就是混凝土的确是吸排水能力最差的建材，对于推论也没什么帮助。然而大家需要记住一点，那就是再微弱的加强也是加强，哪怕这种加强只是可能性。也就说A选项才是正确的，也许开发商的确不差钱，但同样也有可能因为成本翻了三倍，所以就造不了那么多房子用不了那么多混凝土了，那么文章推论的都是法律不健全才导致的洪水问题也就得到了加强。这个真题例子告诉我们，加强或者削弱的选项，本身并不需要能做到直接证实或者推翻推论，只要能够起到加强或者削弱的作用，哪怕只有那么一点点微弱的帮助，也同样是符合题目要求的选项，大家对于其中的度一定要准确把握好才行。